You can watch the debate tonight on MyDebates.org

axer

failsafe wrote: »

My favourite part of the debate was definitely this (from 1:55):

Definitely Obama's strongest part and about the only good part in the debate. McCain really f'ucked up by not looking at the camera and by not looking at obama as if he was afraid of him.

is_that_so

Thought both were very average as debaters and stumbled a lot. McCain was just a little better for me. That probably suits Obama, seeing as McCain is the one with ground to make up and needed to be a lot better. Although he could do with remembering that GW is not running again. There are ways of hitting MCain without the Bush word.

Neither answered questions as to how it is going to affect the implementation of policies, and what they will need to do. Good that voters finally get to see the two of them going at it, face to face, with gusto.

lostexpectation

i think mccain won foreign policy, by doing the old reliable of saying we're winning whether that's true or not, (and they arn't winning) but i sorta glad they didn't say anything too crazy foreign policy wise.

brianthebard

Thing that scares me is the way Obama talks so easily about "the next conflict". Even those that opposed the war in Iraq have no problem seeing more wars on the horizon, haven't they learned anything?

karen3212

brianthebard wrote: »

Thing that scares me is the way Obama talks so easily about "the next conflict". Even those that opposed the war in Iraq have no problem seeing more wars on the horizon, haven't they learned anything?

No, no, no, all that matters is winning. It doesn't matter as long as no one comes home a failure, that's what wars are for - winning

Peteee

The most concerning think about the whole thing was the flippancy of Obama making comments about Pakistan. McCain called him out well on that. Surprised also that Obama didn't pounce on McCains support for the new (And worse) GI bill, taking care of veterans indeeed. Obama should have stressed his tax plan more, as its obviously miles superior to the republicans plan.

Disapointed that it was a mediocre debate. The moderator was clearly getting annoyed at the evasiveness of the answers he was getting with regards to the financial crisis. When asked about what differences this would make, they both just went off spouting about iraq and some such stuff.

I think Obama came off as the more sure of himself (To many old man rambling anecdotes from McCain, though his name dropping of exotic places and names no doubt means he's good on foreign policy!!!), and didn't trip over his words as he is wont to do without a teleprompter.

Biden V Palin next week should be interesting, hopefully she gets taken apart.

Peteee

Peteee wrote: »

Biden V Palin next week should be interesting, hopefully she gets taken apart.

See while all we've seen lately is Palin being stupid (which she has got great publicity out of) I'm wondering if she would be able to turn it around on Thursday. I'd imagine she'll be in training until the second before the debate.

Sand

Palin will have to come out extremely strong to give Biden a run. That said, Im not persuaded that Biden is all that either. Hes been running off radar for the past while - some of his speeches are excellent, and then he makes some rather foolish mistakes which if Palin had said them you would never hear the end of.

Such as:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,”‘

- FDR wasnt President at the time of the 1929 crash, he was elected 3 years later.
- TV didnt reach the public until 1939

“If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me,” Biden said. “Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”

- Sounds a bit like Hillarys encounters with snipers....Biden has had close encounters with Al Queda and the Taliban! His chopper was forced down right where they live! Hes been to where they live!
Except Bidens helicopter wasnt forced down by Al Queda and he didnt encounter them so how he could have personal knowledge of where they are?
There was bad weather and the pilot decided the safest course of action was to land and wait it out. The pilot probably considered the risk of Taliban in that decision. John Kerry didnt seem to think it was that notable "We sat up there and traded stories...We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn’t have to do it…Other than getting a little cold, it was fine.” No taliban or Al Queda encountered. Biden probably knows the one place they arent around...

"Chuck, stand up. Let the people see you, Oh, God love you. What am I talking about?"

Biden representing for Sen. Chuck Graham at a campaign rally. Chuck Graham is wheelchair bound...

Hes got a track record of exaggeration:
"Let’s start telling the truth,” he said. “Number one, you take all the troops out — you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die, number one.”

After a lot of querying, he accepted that it would have been more accurate to say:

"I was near where a shot landed.” I.E. he was in the Green Zone, which has been attacked many times.

Another correction of an exaggeration whilst in full flow

''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.''

Hes as prone to some mixups:

"Over a year ago he [Obama] said we need two more combat battalions in Afghanistan."

Obama called for two more brigades, not battalions.

“Ladies and gentlemen, and I say to the national press here, the single biggest tax cut proposed in history for the middle class is being proposed by John McCain,”

He meant to claim the biggest tax hike...

He has some "tricky" positions that clash with the Obama messages of McCain=Bush=Evil and Obama=Change - essentially, other than being wrong on the surge its hard to see how his views differ from the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy. Indeed, he seems like a bit of a neo-con given his support for a democratising mission in the middle east. This isnt surprising really, Biden has been involved in US foreign policy for years. If he was going to make some paradigm shift, why not do it before?

"I for one applaud President Bush's vision" [the Bush/Neo Con agenda of democratising the Middle East - in fact he criticised Bush for not doing it sooner]

"I believe President Bush's strong rhetorical support for democracy has made a difference by creating space for and emboldening modernizers and moderates."

“The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

“I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain — a Republican — on the ticket with a guy [Kerry -2004] he does like. They do get along. And they don’t have fundamental disagreements on major policies,”

"John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

"the decision to go to war [ in Iraq] was the right one,"

"The surge isn't going to work either tactically or strategically."

"If I were a Jew, I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist" [ This is'nt an odd position by US standards, but it does kick Obamas message of "change" in the face for his supporters who view unquestioned US support of Israel as a problem ]

Hes also got some meeting with Mahmoud Ahmed, director of the Pakistani intelligence service on September 13th, 2001. Ahmed retired on October 8th 2001 - theres two versions on why: Either the official version - Totally conincidental that he retired less than a month later, who financed the terrorist attacks was "of little practical significance" and "no evidence that any foreign government--or foreign government official--supplied any funding."

Or the unofficial version: He was pushed out, when FBI investigations highlighted his involvement in 9/11 - apparently [ CNN reported on the transfer of cash, noted ISI involvement] he ordered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh [ the killer of Daniel Pearl in 2002] to wire 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2001 - business as usual for the ISI in terms of its support for various Islamic terrorist groups & Al Queda were guests of the Taliban whom the ISI were very close to. Then 9/11 happens. With Pakistan rapidly re-aligning to support the US against the Taliban, he was embarrassing to have around and the US was willing to ignore him if Pakistan got on side for Afghanistan. None of this has been proven though. Just reported, alleged etc etc.

Now, lets face it - The ISI might be total angels and when youre a politician you have to smile and shake hands with all sorts of bastards. And Bush and Cheney were as close to Pakistan as anyone. But its the sort of thing Palin can use against him if he tries to attack her for not having met so many foreign dignataries "Its true I havent met all that many foreign dignataries, unlike Joe Biden I didnt have the pleasure of meeting the man who financed 9/11 only 2 days after the WTC fell". The details dont matter, just forcing Biden to defend meeting the guy.

He goes off-message and attacks Obama's campaign:

"I thought that [ Obama ad mocking McCains IT skills] was terrible by the way....I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it." Biden is somewhat justified here as McCains aptitude for IT skills are a bit hampered due to injuries he received to his arms making it painful for him to type etc etc...

”I think he [Obama] can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

Now, Im not criticising Biden for having a Bushism whilst in full flow or stating something in error that contradicts an earlier statement - all politicians can do that, its amazing they can keep "on message" with as few errors as they do. Even McCain and Palin [ and Obama - "my muslim faith" for example ] have been known to screwup in a speech :rolleyes: But it does demonstrate that Biden isnt necessarily a certain winner of the VP debates.

Essentially, if Palin has been studying hard shes got plenty to hit Biden hard on - make him either disown his own words [ basically "I was wrong" alot], or force him to stand by his claims that Obama isnt ready, McCain is qualified, Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East has been great for spreading democracy etc etc. This is even discounting the possibility of Biden making a serious gaffe or exaggeration that hes quite capable of doing. Hes admitted he can lose his temper in a debate or public speaking - if Palin can get a few digs and snipes in, he may get angry. Hes extremely self-confident, to the point of arrogance - if he feels embarrassed by Palin on any point, drama may ensue.